Being open world isn't necessarily more demanding if you do the correct adjustments to draw distance, LOD and such. Even from a CPU standpoint, unless you are going for a high NPC count (AC: Unity), it won't give you more trouble. Remember, San Andreas had a massive world and was running on a PS2. You just scale for what you have.
It's always possible to run at the resolution and/or framerate you want. You just have to make sacrifices. Want to go to 1080p? You will need 2.25x more performance than in 720p or you will need to take a hit at the framerate. Want 60 fps? Then you have two things to worry:
- GPU: you will have half of the time to render a frame. Decrease resolution, cut effects ore remove AA until you reach it.
- CPU: you will have half the time to do your operations. Simplify AI or cut the amount of NPCs, simplify physics, etc, until you reach it.
Remebering, resolution is a GPU only problem. Framerate demands that both CPU and GPU can do the job. It's not about "can it do it", it's more like "what I have to cut to reach it is worth it?". Framerate isn't king as people always try to say. It's one of the things that do the experience.
Resolution is important, it's image clarity. Lowering it means that you will need a better (and more demanding) AA solution to make it look acceptable. Even the best art styles won't look good with low res + no AA (MK8). Number of NPCs is important too, a 30fps sandbox full of life is better than a 60fps desert. Going for more simple AIs isn't easy too: nobody likes dumb enemies.
|
captain carot said: |
That's not correct on GPU level. Modern GPUs are complex and a game can be bottlenecked by more than one thing, so decreasing resolution won't necessariluy give you a direct performance increase always.
About CPU, I agree. If it's CPU limited, resolution won't matter.
